Mature should still be fixing bugs, which something like mosh is bound to always run into. From that perspective, it doesn't seem like it's just mature. There doesn't seem to be a clear all-in-one successor fork taking the reins either. E.g. https://github.com/mobile-shell/mosh/issues/1339, as a random sample.
Each distro package maintainer is always welcome to maintain patches in their forks for as long as they like, but the quality and life of each will be per distro as these efforts are coordinated with an upstream.
i was pointing out that saying the package is unmaintained is likely to be false. to add my comment to your comment, i would imagine that distros are not keeping important patches like security to themselves.
i.e. this package being somehow abandoned and therefore should not be trusted is likely to be false
The above has all been in reference to the mosh project, not any individual distro packaging. E.g. if you "brew install mosh" on macOS right now you will indeed get an official-but 3-year-old-release without any patches Fedora (or others) may have applied since https://formulae.brew.sh/api/formula/mosh.json. The same is true if one goes to the project's GitHub to download it manually.
> i would imagine that distros are not keeping important patches like security to themselves.
I'm not 100% sure what "keeping to themselves" means in context of GPL 3 code, but one can verify with the mosh GitHub link to see the upstream project has not had a single commit on any branch for the last 2.5 years.
The project is dead, it's up to your trust+verification of any specific downstream packaging as to how much of a problem that is for the binary you may be using. Some maintainers may not have noticed/cared enough yet, some maintainers may only carry security fixes of known CVEs, some maintainers may be managing a full fork. The average reader probably wants to note that for their specific binary rather than note Fedora still packages a downstream version (which may be completely different).
>Wages are garnished for child support, victim restitution and other fees. And for those who earn above a certain amount, 10% goes to the Department of Corrections for room and board.
So they take a cut of your pay. Totally not profit? They deserve it? Why not 20% why not 95%.
This criticism 'proves too much', as the same critique can be made of taxes, which doesn't seem like your intent, unless you believe that prisoners are just the 'tip of the iceberg' when it comes to state-slavery.
This is not rehabilitation. Its a politics long con to get free state money. Anytime someone has no rights and is getting money it goes to their captors. There is no exception. This guy in the link should be on probation at the very least.
Also this headline is yellow AF. "Prisoners are thriving" oh yeah? "THRIVING" In f-ing prison? I bet if you asked them 100% would rather not be doing their full time job in prison. I'd stake my life on it in fact.
>This is not rehabilitation. Its a politics long con to get free state money.
1) it can be both
2) I don't see the economic value here. If a prisoner software engineer can make 80k and can instead make 200k if they weren't in prison, what would make the state more? the garnished wages on a prisoner that need to partially go into maintaining the prison, or the taxes on the free person who's paying their own bills? (this isn't rhetorical, I think it's closer than what first blush tells us).
> "Prisoners are thriving" oh yeah? "THRIVING" In f-ing prison?]
Given the context of the article, I take "thriving" as in "being rehabilitated". Which should be the goal of the justice system, but it's been clear that is almost never is the result.
If there's anyone wrongfully imprisoned or otherwise having the book thrown at them, that's a different matter.
The choice is make 90% of their pay only if they make a lot, setting up a career that might be doomed to a life of crime, or do nothing all day in a cell.
They also have to volunteer, what are you even saying
> The FCC is barred by law from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view. The
Communications Act prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcast material, in most cases, and from
making any regulation that would interfere with freedom of speech. Expressions of views that do not
involve a “clear and present danger of serious, substantive evil” come under the protection of the
Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press and prevents suppression
of these expressions by the FCC. According to an FCC opinion on this subject, “the public interest is
best served by permitting free expression of views.” This principle ensures that the most diverse and
opposing opinions will be expressed, even though some may be highly offensive.
Highly cherry-picked. The next paragraph says that FCC limits broadcast of indecent and profane material.
As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
“We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”
What part of that sentence qualifies as either indecent or profane?
I don't think that's what did it. It was the showing of Trump being asked about his "friend" Charlie Kirk being killed, for which his response was "They're building my ballroom. It's gonna be the best ballroom.
Trump has been trying to get Kimmel removed for a while for making fun of him. This was just an opportunity.
What was the opportunity in that segment? Surely airing things the POTUS said is not a limitation of Freedom of the Press?
The thing about the FCC threatening Kimmel for this speech, is that someone needs to identify what was problematic about the speech other than "I didn't like that he said it." I would love for someone to explain to me what the problematic part of the statement was, because I think then we could have a more substantive discussion. As is, this is pretty clearly a 1st amendment violation by the FCC chair as his statements demonstrably chilled speech (it's hard to get much clearer an example than this legally).
I said that the FCC is allowed to enforce morality. The morality in question here is lying about someone being assassinated for their political views. The right sees Charlie Kirk as a political martyr (e.g. their MLK) and they don't want that taken away.
Charlie Kirk was assassinated for his political views. Stated differently: someone with an opposing political viewpoint killed Charlie in order to stop Charlie from promoting Charlie's politics.
Jimmy Kimmel said that Charlie Kirk was killed by someone with the same political views as Charlie.
I can not start to understand your position without a quote. It has to be something Jimmy said that lead to your beliefs, I know of no better place to start.
Given that this is such an easy ask, I think you should consider not about convincing davorak, but about convincing random lurkers who read your comments.
I might've been swayed had you provided the actual quote, but I think davorak kinda won this argument without doing anything other than asking you for receipts. If your position was so certain you would've just provided the quote.
The quote is literally in this thread. Read upwards from your own comment. "Random lurkers" (including yourself) would have read it if they followed the thread to this point.
That's why I don't think davorak is here in good faith. Look how close he was to the quote.
What are you doing here? How did you get here without reading the quote?
Kimmel's performance was clearly not obscene or indecent - it did not depict or describe sexual conduct or excretory organs - and it aired after 10 PM, so whether it was profane is irrelevant.
>As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
And what you said was incorrect. Under 1A, the only content which the FCC can ban outright is obscenity, defined as per the document I linked; see FCC v. Pacifica for context.
The FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. You actually agree with me here, since we both cited obscenity as a clear example.
I also assert that the morality being enforced by the FCC [in a given time period] will fall in line with the morality of the rulers of [that time period]. That is a descriptive statement.
> The FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality.
As I said previously, the FCC is bound by the First Amendment. They do not have the power to restrict speech, whether on grounds of "morality" or otherwise.
Obscenity is not considered speech as far as 1A is concerned, so the FCC is able to ban it. I disagree with this categorization, but it is what it is.
The U.S. government won’t have a seat on the board and agreed to vote with Intel’s board on matters requiring shareholder approval “with limited exceptions.”
